CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
He was all over the road - weaving from side to side. No focus on anything, broad generalities on everything.
Not a single promise that can be acheived . . . or even met half way in his remaining term in office.
Promises that he makes for the years 2012 through 2020 are not realistic.
Promises to put 70,000 teachers into the education system after already cutting critical funding are empty and hollow.
He can't even do a decent job as a fluffer.
How 'bout that Cindy Shehan - went to hear him talk, didn't even get to her seat.
Not a single promise that can be acheived . . . or even met half way in his remaining term in office.
Promises that he makes for the years 2012 through 2020 are not realistic.
Promises to put 70,000 teachers into the education system after already cutting critical funding are empty and hollow.
He can't even do a decent job as a fluffer.
How 'bout that Cindy Shehan - went to hear him talk, didn't even get to her seat.
Gamingphreek
Lifer
- Mar 31, 2003
- 11,679
- 0
- 81
Yes because Clinton was most definitely a conservative -_-
Sorry Bush has yet to damn the sacred oval office. Reagan wouldn't even take his jacket off yet there, but Clinton felt the need to have sex there. Utterly horrible, not only that he LIED about when he was impeached. Lets not forget that he was impeached in the first place because he had affairs with at least 3 other women.
Bush is head and shoulders better than Clinton!
-Kevin
Sorry Bush has yet to damn the sacred oval office. Reagan wouldn't even take his jacket off yet there, but Clinton felt the need to have sex there. Utterly horrible, not only that he LIED about when he was impeached. Lets not forget that he was impeached in the first place because he had affairs with at least 3 other women.
Bush is head and shoulders better than Clinton!
-Kevin
Not only was Shrub himself a CGI character (watch how the blinking is always when his head turns past a certain angle), the guy from Virginia that was on after him was CGI as well, just a much simpler model. If you look close you can see the seams between the textured polygons.
I like how the Bush CGI almost burst into laughter towards the end of the speech.
I like how the Bush CGI almost burst into laughter towards the end of the speech.
Sheik Yerbouti
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2005
- 14,080
- 5,453
- 136
"We're winning the war in Iraq" how thick is this moron's bubble? And we're addicted to oil... really georgie? Really? Hmmm, I wonder why, perhaps because you've cut funding for alternative energy on a regular basis, and well, let's not forget your ties to big oil, and wow, they are really scraping to make a profit lately. I loathe him, I cannot wait for 08.
Great SOTU. Kept hammering home the points. Just because there's nothing new and sexy, lib's have a field day attacking his speech. Were there democratic elections in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did Iraq draw up a constitution? It's not going to happen over night, it's not going to happen easily.
but wait... I thought there was no progress.
All a liberal can do is attack the top because they are not in control, and are huge babies.
but wait... I thought there was no progress.
All a liberal can do is attack the top because they are not in control, and are huge babies.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
Why did you feel obligated to add in the troll at the end of your post? This is a perfect example of why the level of dialogue here has been so poor, for so long.
Sheik Yerbouti
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2005
- 14,080
- 5,453
- 136
War, not elections. I am very happy they had the elections, but how many soldiers have died since the last sotu, how many? More than the last time frame? And how about the pentagon report stating that the military forces are stretched too thin to win? I suppose that was just swept under the table. Pakistan had elections, but since we don't like who was elected, we won't support them. I wonder what would have happened if the insurgents won the election in Iraq...
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
True indeed. Why aren't we trumpeting the elections in Palestine as a triumph of democracy? We don't like who won!
It's the same reason they only gloss-over the Iraq elections. We don't like won won there either.
Yea, he only started a war and killed a bunch of people instead, thats much better. I find it funny that you hold someone like Reagan in high regard for not taking his jacket off in the oval office, while Reagan was funding guerillas in South America to kill innocent people. Yea, what a great man.
Gamingphreek
Lifer
- Mar 31, 2003
- 11,679
- 0
- 81
Yes Bush started the war by bombing the WTC's and forcing the US to invade Afghanistan. Bush also forced us to go into Iraq because we all know that Iraq was peaceful, and Saddam was a good man. Give me a break.
Funny i dont recall that. I do recall us supporting middle east resistance forces at one point but never intentionally giving money to kill innocent people. Why dont you take a look at what you wrote. Based on your post you would think that the US's entire scheme under Reagan was to murder innocent civilians, which is of course false.
Not only that, i find it funny that you are once again using an "ad hominem" fallacy instead of arguing back. What, aren't you going to defend your dear friend Mr. Clinton.
-Kevin
I am not a liberal per say, I am not a Bush supporter either. I must say though that I think I missed the part where the dagger was brought out or where it would make the history books. I guess it's that "see nothing wrong", "Bush is great", right wing freak view of things.
Gamingphreek
Lifer
- Mar 31, 2003
- 11,679
- 0
- 81
I support bush, i dont see him as a saint. I agree along with many Americans that inteligence was invalid. Not only that there have been some mistakes. In case you forgot we are all HUMANS. We make MISTAKES. Finally, it is ludicrous to suggest that all the blame be put on Bush's soldiers. I never saw the president running around in Iraq in cognito gathering Intel. (Also intel is intel, if it was 100% right then it would be fact).
-Kevin
We will fight the war on terror one way or another. Either they will attack us or we will fight them. Maybe next time NY City will be nuked instead.
Gamingphreek
Lifer
- Mar 31, 2003
- 11,679
- 0
- 81
At that time they were fighting for us, and they were not committing acts of terror. You cannot tie the actions of the future of those people to our actions in the past.
Im sure if Reagan knew that a couple years down the road they would be fighting us, we would never have supported them.
Not only that, the little amount of technology Reagan gave them is pitiful compared to the amount of technology that Clinton handed them... and that was after they had ties to several terror attacks.
-Kevin
There is one simple reason why today's liberals are up in arms about the current administration...
...they got too used to a president who SAT ON HIS @$$ during the day and fvcked around in the evening! Liberals just cant stand a president who does something while he is in office! :Q
If the Clinton administration had done what clearly needed doing back in his day, we would have none of these problems and *gasp* Bush probably wouldn?t have even had an excuse to go into Iraq.
But of course, you liberals who are blinded by your asinine ideology, would claim he would have "found an excuse," and "lied" to find some other way to get into Iraq.
(As a side note... Bush did NOT lie about the WMD's. WMD's were in Iraq and as Saddam's deputy chief said "Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war began... Saddam realized this time the Americans are coming."
Others point out - "the overwhelmingly belief by the world?s best intelligence agencies that Saddam did indeed have stockpiles of WMD in the six months leading up to the war. The French, the British, the Germans, The Israeli?s, the United Nations (UNSCOM and IAEA), not to mention the CIA, DIA, and most politicians here in this country. That?s quite a number of people to be dead wrong about such a huge issue." It is a logical disconnect that - just because we didn't find WMD's in Iraq, Saddam must not have had them at all! But of course, thinking is not something liberals often do. Their absurd biases, and willingness to accept and obey everything the liberal media tell them demonstrates this rather well.
More here and here )
To you libbies... GET SOME B4LLS!
...they got too used to a president who SAT ON HIS @$$ during the day and fvcked around in the evening! Liberals just cant stand a president who does something while he is in office! :Q
If the Clinton administration had done what clearly needed doing back in his day, we would have none of these problems and *gasp* Bush probably wouldn?t have even had an excuse to go into Iraq.
But of course, you liberals who are blinded by your asinine ideology, would claim he would have "found an excuse," and "lied" to find some other way to get into Iraq.
(As a side note... Bush did NOT lie about the WMD's. WMD's were in Iraq and as Saddam's deputy chief said "Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war began... Saddam realized this time the Americans are coming."
Others point out - "the overwhelmingly belief by the world?s best intelligence agencies that Saddam did indeed have stockpiles of WMD in the six months leading up to the war. The French, the British, the Germans, The Israeli?s, the United Nations (UNSCOM and IAEA), not to mention the CIA, DIA, and most politicians here in this country. That?s quite a number of people to be dead wrong about such a huge issue." It is a logical disconnect that - just because we didn't find WMD's in Iraq, Saddam must not have had them at all! But of course, thinking is not something liberals often do. Their absurd biases, and willingness to accept and obey everything the liberal media tell them demonstrates this rather well.
More here and here )
To you libbies... GET SOME B4LLS!
SparkyJJO
Lifer
- May 16, 2002
- 13,357
- 7
- 81
Thank you for being one of the few who understand it, I'm with you 100%
If memory serves, didn't Clinton have Bin Laden practially handed to him on a silver platter and was "too busy" to worry about him? Look what happened - if it wasn't for Clinton fooling around we probably wouldn't have had 9/11.
The liberals are scared of Bush because when he says something, he does it. They're used to Clinton who was all bark and no bite (and even his bark was pitiful). Bush on the other hand DOES STUFF. And for those of you who complain "yeah well what about this and this that he hasn't done?" Guess what, YOU LIBERALS ARE IN THE WAY OF A LOT OF IT! First you block him from doing stuff, then complain that he hasn't done it. Well DUH! :roll:
Gamingphreek
Lifer
- Mar 31, 2003
- 11,679
- 0
- 81
While i agree with your remarks i still think it is unfair to blame Clinton for 9/11 (Dont get me wrong, i hate the man not only the way he ran the white house, but also because his morals; or lack thereof). He could not have known the extent of what would happen. The only people that stand to take the blame for 9/11 are the terrorists who comitted the act.
As for the acting rather than speaking, not to "diss" the liberals or anything, but isn't that characteristically a conservative trait. Im in AP Government right now and for some reason that rings a bell.
-Kevin
Yes, there are many other factors that play into the events of 9/11, but Clinton's lack of action certainly didn't help things.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post and think through the issue. :thumbsup:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter